Skip to main content

Time to Market - not sufficient reason to transition to Agile.

If your number one reason to switch to Agile software development is - Time to Market - you should come up with a better reason. Dig deeper. Ask WHY this is important to your customers (not just your companies bottom line).

In "The 12 Key Reasons Companies Adopt Agile" by Mike Cottmeyer notes this as reason #1. While I agree with his list of reasons, I don't agree that those reasons are always sufficient to motivate people to change.
1. Faster time to market – Lots of folks that decide to go agile are pretty fed up with 18 month delivery cycles that quite often deliver the wrong products to market… one’s that our customers just aren’t interested in buying. The idea of two week delivery cycles and quarterly release cadences is pretty appealing. Our markets and our competition are just moving too fast… we’ve got to get better at getting working product out the door faster.
If the best reason your CEO can come up with is to increase the rate of product deliver, then ask what that Change Announcement is going to sound like to your development organization.  The announcement will come across as the typical down sizing platitude "We need to do more with less."  Are they going to understand the compelling reason for change?

The statement to "do more with less" should only be interpreted as an admonition on the leaderships failure to focus and set priorities.  The action that all reasonable people take when faced with fewer resources.

For two decades or more, John Kotter has been the world's foremost authority on leadership and change.  Harvard Business Review continually reruns his articles illustrating how the best organizations approach and execute change. In Leading Change by John Kotter he talks about his 8 steps to Organizational Change. Step one is Urgency.  People need to understand the reasons underlying the change if they are to internalize the change and make the transition successfully.

You could get the Harvard Business Review's symposium "Urgency: How to Make Real Change Your Company's Top Priority."

Now, with A Sense of Urgency Kotter digs deeper into the issue that is the most pressing for global managers and leaders today, the need to create a high enough sense of urgency among people to set the stage for making a challenging leap in a new direction. In this interactive session, participants will learn the clear distinction between constructive true urgency and destructive false urgency and will emerge armed with tactics for creating the right kind of urgency within their organization.
Is Time to Market your rational for Urgency?  Is this not the same as saying "Hurry it's urgent!"?  I suggest you use the Five Whys technique to get to the root reason that time to market is important to your company.
The infinite hows An argument against the Five Whys and an alternative approach you can apply.  By John Allspaw
In The Telegraph's article "Think Tank: Have you ever asked yourself why you're in business?" by Dan Pink, he covers this aspect of discovering the WHY.

While I believe that this is an important aspect gained by an Agile Transition, I also believe that if it is the primary goal there may be deeper issues to be uncovered when your business starts to deal with organizational impediments that the transformation will expose. One benefit of Agile is the ability to deliver a Minimal Viable Product to market early. But to make customers happy one will need a path to enhance this product. To be successful with this strategy one will have to be using many Agile practices (Lean in the product vertical segment, Scrum at the team level, XP at the engineering level).

One needs to glean the reasons why time to market is important to your customers - I'm sure there are good reasons, those are your reasons for urgency.

See Also:
No, really! Agile really is the Goal! by Tim Snyder.  Rejecting the assertion that agile is a tool to become "better, faster, cheaper."


Most Popular on Agile Complexification Inverter

Exercise:: Definition of Ready & Done

Assuming you are on a Scrum/Agile software development team, then one of the first 'working agreements' you have created with your team is a 'Definition of Done' - right?

Oh - you don't have a definition of what aspects a user story that is done will exhibit. Well then, you need to create a list of attributes of a done story. One way to do this would be to Google 'definition of done' ... here let me do that for you: Then you could just use someone else's definition - there DONE!

But that would be cheating -- right? It is not the artifact - the list of done criteria, that is important for your team - it is the act of doing it for themselves, it is that shared understanding of having a debate over some of the gray areas that create a true working agreement. If some of the team believes that a story being done means that there can be no bugs found in the code - but some believe that there can be some minor issues - well, …

Elements of an Effective Scrum Task Board

What are the individual elements that make a Scrum task board effective for the team and the leadership of the team?  There are a few basic elements that are quite obvious when you have seen a few good Scrum boards... but there are some other elements that appear to elude even the most servant of leaders of Scrum teams.

In general I'm referring to a physical Scrum board.  Although software applications will replicated may of the elements of a good Scrum board there will be affordances that are not easily replicated.  And software applications offer features not easily implemented in the physical domain also.

Scrum Info Radiator Checklist (PDF) Basic Elements
Board Framework - columns and rows laid out in bold colors (blue tape works well)
Attributes:  space for the total number of stickies that will need to belong in each cell of the matrix;  lines that are not easy eroded, but are also easy to replace;  see Orientation.

Columns (or Rows) - labeled
    To Do
    Work In P…

Webinar: Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done, Ready, and NO.

I was invited to participate in a Scrum Alliance Webinar.  Maybe you would like to listen to us in a discussion of techniques to collaborate at scale (remotely and with many people).  The topic is one that I've got some experience in discussions - yet I never seem to get to done...
Collaboration at Scale: Defining Done and Ready and NO for Distributed Teams
With Joel Bancroft-Connors, Agile Organizational Coach; David A. Koontz, Agile Transition Guide; and Luke Hohmann, CEO and Founder of Conteneo, Inc.

14 February 2018 11 a.m. ET (USA).

The Scrum Guide is pretty clear on the criticality of the definition of Done: "When a Product Backlog item or an Increment is described as "Done," everyone must understand what "Done" means. However, the Scrum Guide ALSO says that the definition of Done can "vary significantly per Scrum Team." This leads us to examine when and how the definition of Done should vary, how distributed teams should cr…

A T-Shaped 21st Century Knowledge Worker

Knowledge workers in the 21st Century must have many areas of deep knowledge, while also be capable of collaboration across multiple other domains with dissimilar T-shaped individuals.  This description of a person is a metaphor.  Compare it to the shape of the "I" in the classic saying there is no "I" in Team.

I first read about Scott Ambler's term "Generalizing Specialist" - but it's so hard to remember the proper order of the words... get it backwards and it has an inverted meaning... T-Shaped is easier to remember. 
A generalizing specialist is someone who:
Has one or more technical specialties (e.g. Java programming, Project Management, Database Administration, ...). Has at least a general knowledge of software development. Has at least a general knowledge of the business domain in which they work. Actively seeks to gain new skills in both their existing specialties as well as in other areas, including both technical and domain areas.  General…

A FAILURE to Communicate

I was working with a failing team some time ago.  I use "failing" to describe the outcome of the team - not the people on the team.  Are you OK with that description?

An issue arrose in the stand up - a team member that was to verify the quality of a procedure did so and reported that there were a few records that didn't match expectation in the data set.  Upon inquire the number of records not matching was over 2000.  Most people acknowledged immediately the exaggeration - I could tell by the laughter.  After about 10 minutes of discussing the details of the problem - it appeared the team had a handle on the specific situation.

I stopped the discussion and inquired if they could name the impediment.  One team member did a great job of describing the impediment as a _communication gap_.  Wonderful - I could work with that - the problem had a name and it didn't include anyones Proper Name.

"If the problem has a first name; we are going to have a problem."